STAY AT HOME
LOCKDOWNS
WERE NEVER
"TESTED"
The stay at home
orders were like a
huge experimental
treatment, with
no control group,
no evidence
they would work,
and obviously huge,
and expected,
social and economic
side effects, from the
business shutdowns.
Stay at home orders,
were issued by governors
in most states, and were
applied to most people
even though we knew
a very large percentage
of Americans had no
symptoms of COVID-19,
and young, healthy people
had a very low risk
of dying.
No one demanded
a double blind test
to prove the HUGE
stay at home decisions
were the right decisions !
We may never know.
The COVID-19 disease
was spreading too fast
for hospitals to handle
in some European
"hot spots", so we
needed to "flatten
the curve" in the U.S.
And hope the COVID-19
spread would significantly
slow when the weather got
warmer and more humid,
like conventional flu strains.
President Trump and
his support staff, which
included Dr. Fauci,
have consistently
received misleading
and false information
from China.
When I heard about the
mandatory lockdown
of Wuhan, i immediately
knew the epidemic was
bad news, making the
official Chinese death
figures hard to believe.
Chinese communists
are notorious liars, so
I had a good reason
to not trust them.
Truth is not a leftist
value, and China has
a far left dictatorship.
I did not know at the time
that many Wuhan residents
were allowed to "escape"
before the lockdown,
but not to other parts
of China, only out
of the country,
I have heard !
If that's true, the Chinese
allowed their virus to
attack the rest of the world.
HOW HAS DR. FAUCI
HELPED AMERICANS ?
Dr. Fauci is the head
of the National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases ( NIAID ).
So far this year he has
given President Trump
consistently bad advice.
I believe It is long
past the time for
Dr. Fauci to retire.
The Centers for
Disease Control
( CDC ) ,
and Fauci’s NIAID,
are also shirking
their immediate
responsibility
to compile the
massive quantity of
field trial evidence
-- a large number of
2020 case-histories
that can be turned into
a COVID-19 data set,
and analyzed.
CDC is
supposed
to do that.
From the CDC’s
mission statement
page:
"CDC in the 21st Century
– confronting global disease threats
through advanced computing
and lab analysis of huge amounts
of data to quickly find solutions."
But their
official position,
guided by the
very visible Fauci,
is that real-world data
are not good enough.
Field experience
( real world data
from doctors )
reveals what
treatments
seem to work.
Clinical trials
are used later,
to verify what
doctors believe
to be working.
But bureaucrat Fauci
doesn't want to analyze
the real world data.
In early 2020,
Dr. Fauci was telling
us COVID-19 was
no big deal -- just
keep on enjoying
your life.
Go to the Super Bowl.
WRONG.
He convinced Trump
to be over optimistic
in early March, making
public statements
that seem foolish now.
WRONG.
Then he convinced Trump
to be over pessimistic,
by late March, and we
heard that two million
Americans could die,
according to one model.
WRONG.
In April 2020, Fauci
was advising many
more months of
the partial economic
shutdown -- forget
about May 1, or June 1,
to reopen any businesses.
Probably wrong again.
Dr. Fauci is an
elderly befuddled,
long-term government
bureaucrat, since the
Reagan Administration,
who gives the nation
bad predictions, and
bad advice.
His greatest faults
are quoting wild guess
models, dismissal of
anecdotal evidence,
and the inability to
say "I don't know".
For many weeks,
Dr. Anthony Fauci
dismissed all of
the evidence for
Hydroxychloroquine
treatments for
COVID-19, as
“anecdotal”
and
“the slightest hint
of evidence”
simply because
the evidence
didn’t come from
clinically controlled
double blind tests.
Wrong again.
Valid statistics
do need a
control group.
But the control does
not have to be a clinical
double blind test.
With a double blind test,
doctors would have to
withhold all medicines
from half of their gravely
ill patients, who would
only get sugar pills.
That would be cruel
when there is already
a huge control group:
The thousands of
case histories
of COVID-19 patients
all around the world,
who never received
Hydroxy treatments.
The outcomes
from large samples
of Hydroxy patients
versus
no Hydroxy patients,
needs to be compiled
quickly, and studied.
Any difference
in patient mortality
rates would be useful
anecdotal data for
Hydroxychloroquine,
because there are
a very large number
of doctors and patients
trying that drug.
But old Dr. Fauci
could not care less
-- he has no plans
to look at this huge
body of field data.
He plans to wait until
clinically controlled
double blind tests
are completed
this summer.
Fauci said on April 9th:
"It’ll probably be months,
sometime in the summer
—we’ll start to see
which are working,
which are not ,
and to focus on
those that we
are developing
and will work".
But drug trials
that use non-clinical
controls are exactly
what a younger
Dr. Fauci used to
become famous !
Dr. Fauci's
career-making
medical research
was entirely
dependent on
historic controls
( comparing
his treatment
outcomes
to historical
mortality rates ),
with no clinical
control groups
ever involved.
Doctor Wolff
and Dr. Fauci
got famous for
treating Wegner’s
Granulomatosis.
They developed
a treatment for it
in the 70s and 80s
that saved lives.
Their "test" was not
a random sample,
and NOT a controlled
double blind test.
We should be using
the data we have NOW
for COVID-19.
There's lots of experience
treating patients with
a combination of
Hydroxychloroquine
and Azithromycin.
Those are observational
data, but still very useful.
Fauci’s own medical
research was full of
non-clinical controls.
His use of historical
observational data
was sound science.
But now Fauci
is against that
for COVID-19.
Also, why is
no one collecting
data on COVID-19
outcomes for people
with arthritis, and/or
lupus, who have been
on hydroxychloroquine
for years ?
Fauci is not withholding
hydroxychlorquine.
Doctors can prescribe it
for COVID-19.
But Fauci has been
discouraging its use
for no logical reason.
Hydroxychloroquine
is not likely to ever get
an expensive clinical trial,
because it is off-patent.
Anyone can make it,
and sell it as a generic,
so there's no profit motive
to fund clinical trials.
Double blind tests
are the gold standard,
but drugs have been
approved using
alternative study
designs, usually for life
threatening conditions.
COVID-19 is certainly
a life threatening condition,
and hydroxychloroquine
has had a low risk profile
over many decades.
No drugs are risk free.
Even aspirin.
In France, a combination
of antimalarial drugs
and azithromycin,
showed 43 cases of
heart incidents linked to
hydroxychloroquine.
A small study in Brazil
had to be cut short after
patients taking high-doses
of chloroquine, to treat their
COVID-19 symptoms,
started to develop
heart arrhythmias.
If you are looking for
a small difference
between two drugs
for the same disease,
a controlled
double blind trial
makes sense.
You can ensure
that every patient
receives nearly
identical care.
In an environment
that is not controlled,
a very large sample size
significantly reduces
the margin of error.
The medical profession
needs to move away
from its fascination
with randomized,
controlled double
blind tests.
Generally,
a new drug
needs two positive
double blind tests
that show it
works better than
a sugar pill,
for FDA approval.
A new pain killer
can be FDA approved
even if it works
no better than aspirin.
When dealing with
epidemics, where
people are dying,
there's NOT enough time
available for conducting
controlled double blind
tests.
Dr. Fauci does not care.
A large volume of COVID-19
patients can be analyzed,
using “large data” methods,
to determine the value of
treatment alternatives,
long before double blind
clinical trials can be
completed.